Activites

• 1996/06/10 Final act published in Official Journal
• 1996/05/23 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T4-0279/1996 summary

    Adopting the report by Mr DANKERT (PSE, NL), the European Parliament gave discharge to its secretary-general in respect of the implementation of the budget for the 1994 financial year but regretted that the contract for the new building in Strasbourg was signed without the financial controller's prior approval (the President of the Parliament apparently signed a lease without taking account of the financial perspectives and the decision was taken by the Bureau without taking account of these perspectives). It agreed with the Court of Auditors that there can be no "de facto" approval. The report also addressed the administrative structure and management of the European Parliament, taking account of the increased workload, and called for a report within the next 18 months on how the European Parliament can increase the efficiency of its management and structures in order to be prepared for future enlargement. At the same time, Parliament gave discharge to the secretaries-general of the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the ESC and the Committee of the Regions in respect of the implementation of their individual budgets for the 1994 financial year, while drawing the attention of these institutions to their recruitment policies. Parliament was particularly concerned by the recruitment policy of the Committee of the Regions and called for a report on all aspects of this policy (including an audit of mission and travel expenses of the Committee members).

• 1996/05/22 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur, Mr DANKERT (PSE, NL), said that according to the findings of the Court of Auditors the decision to construct a new building in Strasbourg should not have been taken in the way it was. The rapporteur referred in particular to the fact that when it took the decision on Strasbourg the Bureau had completely failed to take into account that the financial perspectives at that time could not accommodate the financial consequences of such a decision. Moreover, as things still stood, if Ecofin or the Florence European Summit refused to extend the financial perspectives for heading 5, serious funding problems would result. Mr Dankert then pointed out that the report on discharge included for the first time a number of the Community’s smaller institutions, including the Committee of the Regions, and that serious concerns had been expressed as regards the latter’s personnel recruitment procedures. In fact, this Committee had almost completely failed to respect the geographical distribution of the recruitment process, which had resulted in a serious imbalance in its make-up. Finally, the rapporteur criticised the system used by some institutions for recruiting assistants, with the Court of Auditors being a case in point. Mrs THEATO (EPP, D) responded to the rapporteur by stating that ‘the decisions concerning the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg are political decisions that have to be respected if one wishes to ensure proper working conditions in Brussels as well as in Strasbourg’.

• 1996/04/25 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0132/1996
• 1996/01/01 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading

Documents

• Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A4-0132/1996
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0279/1996

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)